[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 132 (Monday, October 4, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11879-S11880]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1683. A bill to make technical changes to the Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                 Rural Alaska Access Rights Act of 1999

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce 
legislation to make technical amendments to the Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
  This legislation is a Rural Alaska Bill of Rights.
  This legislation is the direct result of no less than six hearings I 
have held on this issue since becoming chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  During these hearings I was continuously assured by the 
administration that many of the frustrations Alaskans face because of 
the interpretation of ANILCA could be dealt with administratively. 
Unfortunately, many of the problems remain unresolved today.
  Some background on this issue is appropriate.
  Nineteen years ago Congress enacted ANILCA placing more than 100 
million acres of land out of 365 into a series of vast parks, wildlife 
refuges, and wilderness units.
  Much of the concern about the act was the impact these Federal units, 
and related management restrictions, would have on traditional 
activities and lifestyles of the Alaskan people.
  To allay these concerns, ANILCA included a series of unique 
provisions designed to ensure that traditional activities and 
lifestyles would continue, and that Alaskans would not be subjected to 
a ``Permit Lifestyle,'' as the

[[Page S11880]]

senior Senator from Alaska has often said.
  It is for these reasons that ANILCA is often called ``compromise 
legislation'' and indeed it was--part of the compromise was that lands 
would be placed in CSU's and the other part was that Alaskans would be 
granted certain rights with regard to access and use in these units.
  These rights were not only granted to the individuals that live in 
Alaska but were designed to allow the State itself to play a major role 
in the planning and use of these areas.
  However, the Federal Government has not lived up to its end of the 
bargain--many of the Federal managers seem to have lost sight of these 
important representations to the people of Alaska, specifically on 
issues such as access across these areas and use in them.
  Federal managers no longer recognize the crucial distinction between 
managing units surrounded by millions of people in the Lower 48 and 
vast multi-million acre units encompassing just a handful of 
individuals and communities in Alaska.
  The result is the creation of the exact ``permit lifestyle'' which we 
were promised would never happen.
  The delegation and other Members of this body warned this could be 
the case when the legislation passed.
  As one Member of this body noted in the Senate report on this bill:

       This Piece of Legislation, if enacted will prove to be the 
     most important legislation ever affecting Alaska . . . While 
     we in Congress may be reading the provisions one way . . . 
     regulatory tools are all laid out in the bill to give rise to 
     future bureaucratic nightmare for the people of Alaska . . . 
     Frankly, I am expecting the worst . . . the use of massive 
     conservation system unit designations to block exploration, 
     development, and recreation of these lands and on adjacent 
     non-federal lands.

  How prophetic!
  The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has held extensive 
hearings in Alaska on the implementation of ANILCA in Anchorage, 
Wrangell and Fairbanks.
  In these hearings we have heard from nearly 100 witnesses--
representing every possible interest group.
  Four clear themes have emerged from those hearings:
  Federal agencies have failed to honor the promises made to Alaskans 
when ANILCA was passed into law;
  Agencies are not providing prior and existing right holders with 
reasonable use and access in the exercise of their property right;
  Agency personnel manage Alaska wilderness areas and conservation 
units the same way that similar units are being managed in the Lower 
48--contrary to the intent of Congress; and
  Agencies, while stating their willingness to address complaints, fail 
to act in a reasonable and timely fashion when it comes to dealing with 
specific issues.
  Some of the specific issues identified include such absurdities as:
  Indivdiuals and corporations are asked to pay hundreds-of-thousands 
of dollars to do an EIS for access to their own properties when none is 
required by law.
  Millions of acres of public lands are closed to recreationists 
without ever having identified a resource threat.
  When a tree falls on somebody's cabin or a bear destroys it Federal 
regulators will not let a person make reasonable repairs.
  At field hearings the administration asked for time to address these 
problems--we gave them time--and little has happened.
  We have not ``jumped'' to a legislative solution, rather we have 
acknowledged that oversight has failed to produce meaningful 
administrative change.
  Does it make sense that:
  When land managers are assigned to Alaska they are not required to 
have any formal ANILCA training?
  When a tree falls on somebody's cabin or a bear destroys it that 
Federal regulators will not let a person make reasonable repairs.
  People are told they will have to pay ridiculous sums of money to 
access their inholdings?
  The answer to all these questions is clearly no. These are some of 
the problems that have to be resolved and are included in this 
legislation.
                                 ______